Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a read-only operation, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful detail about the response content, including the JSON Schema definition and optional usage information, but does not discuss potential errors or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three focused sentences with no redundant or vague language. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds optional behavior and usage guidance, making it concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for this simple read-only tool: it states what is returned, when to use it, when to use the alternative, and the prerequisite of project context. No output schema is present, but the description sufficiently conveys the expected output shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds only marginal context by linking schemaId to the alternative list_schemas workflow and clarifying that includeUsage controls endpoint reference details, but it largely repeats what the parameter descriptions already state.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves detailed schema information including the full JSON Schema definition, and distinguishes it from list_schemas for browsing or finding schema IDs. The verb 'Get' and resource 'schema' are specific and unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says to use this tool when the schema ID is already known and directs users to list_schemas for browsing or finding IDs. It also notes that project context is required, providing clear conditions for appropriate use.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.